climate change

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, mistermack said:

All pure speculation. If it's open season for wild claims, then a warmer world will open up vast areas of Russia and Canada for use, completely cancelling out a little bit of flooded coast. 

Hardly. Ports are located on these flooded coasts, and a lot of people. These areas that would be “opened up” have little infrastructure, which would have to be built up, and so are hardly a replacement.

[Peterkin]

Not so so "pure" speculation. Based a very large accumulation of evidence, all of which is available to anyone willing to look.

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

If it's open season for wild claims

Not so wild, either.  deserts growing   https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/05/climate-change-harming-deserts/  

sea level rising  https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/sealevelrise-tech-report.html

rivers drying up https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/03/receding-glaciers-causing-rivers-to-suddenly-disappear

lots of places uninhabitable

The video doesn't work .

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

then a warmer world will open up vast areas of Russia and Canada for use

Now, that one is wild. Are you aware of how much of Canada and Russia are already burning every summer? Guess what that's doing to the oxygen production and carbon capture capability of forests. Or how much of the northern ecosystem is collapsing because it depends on permafrost, the thawing of which, incidentally, accelerates climate change.  

And that's before you even start factoring in the severe winter storms, spring floods and summer droughts, tornadoes all across the central plains reaching farther east; hurricanes along the coast, reaching farther inland, unpredictable wind and rainfall, and all the plant diseases and insect infestations. 

 

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

And the Sahara will green again, with the extra rainfall a warmer world will bring. 

Good luck with that!

Edited March 27, 2023 by Peterkin

[npts2020]

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

8 hours ago, mistermack said:

then a warmer world will open up vast areas of Russia and Canada for use

Now, that one is wild. Are you aware of how much of Canada and Russia are already burning every summer? Guess what that's doing to the oxygen production and carbon capture capability of forests. Or how much of the northern ecosystem is collapsing because it depends on permafrost, the thawing of which, incidentally, accelerates climate change.  

And that's before you even start factoring in the severe winter storms, spring floods and summer droughts, tornadoes all across the central plains reaching farther east; hurricanes along the coast, reaching farther inland, unpredictable wind and rainfall, and all the plant diseases and insect infestations. 

Ya, and just wait till the Arctic clathrates start belching forth massive amounts of methane and carbon dioxide as they melt...

Edited March 28, 2023 by npts2020

[mistermack]

Sea levels have risen about 8 inches since 1880. 3.5 inches of that was before CO2 levels started any significant rise in 1950. The world has handled it quite well. And sea levels have been much higher in the past, without human activity.

As for deserts, yes, some are growing. Why? Because of over-grazing on the margins because of the high birth rate in those areas. In areas where grazing is managed, the desertification can be reversed.

There are other factors than CO2 at work.

[CharonY]

There are always multiple factors, but your interpretation is a bit misleading. I assume you refer to absolute sea level (as shown here https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level)

If we take those 70 years (1880-1950) and let's say it is 4 inches, then we can see that the next 4 inches were reached already in about 55 years. The next 2 inches were reached around 2021. In other words, the increase is accelerating rate analysis show that starting around 2006 the annual increase was around 2.5 that of the 20th century.

It should also be noted that CO2 has seen quite an increase between 1880 and 1950, though the increase was not quite as steep as the following increase. https://www.sealevel.info/co2.html

But to say that it was insignificant is probably not accurate.

Finally regarding grazing and population density being the drivers of desertification, do you have data? I am no expert, but intuitively I would expect a fairly low population density in most deserts. There are exceptions, like e.g. Phoenix, but there birth rate is not the driver of population density.

 

[Intoscience]

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Every generation throw's at least one baby out with the bathwater in our persuit of... mostly leasure, which tends to be conflated with pleasure rather than boredom, for some reason; when I was a kid clothes washing, including nappy's, was a days work with a twin tub, sometimes that was the best day of the week.

And every generation think's it's smarter, because Dad doesn't know what google is... But he could fix the plug that feeds it, which begs the question of what's smarter...

Greta's not pointing the fingure at them or us, she's pointing the fingure at "the government" who can afford it.

My story wasn't about relative poverty, it's about what is affordable; and for me, turning off the streetlights is the starting point of affordable. 

IIRC shifting the clock's to suite our working hour's, saved millions of candles...

Ok fair enough, I'll concede 

18 hours ago, exchemist said:

I am not aware that there is any law requiring individual companies to be net zero by any deadline. What industry is this, in what country, and what pressure is there for it to achieve net zero unilaterally?

I cannot speak for all nations and all companies. But in the sector I work the government are putting pressure on the companies to be net zero by 2050 and now with the announcement of the UN by 2040. The initial expectation was 2030, but the government realised that this was totally unrealistic so backed off somewhat. 

The reality is that most are not going to achieve the 2040 mark so what does this mean? No one really has any answer.

So this is what is sort of eating at me on this subject. The climate change experts and scientific community on this subject are saying that the world will suffer devastating consequences if carbon reduction is not achieved. So if this is the case (which I have conceded to accept) then if  it's is not achieved soon governments will surely have no other choice but to enforce action. So rather than being an initiative it will become a mandate.

Fine, if this needs to be done then we will have to accept it. However, with out support there will be economic consequences, which without support people will not achieve the deadline.

So in my humble opinion to achieve the deadline there requires significant investment in aiding people to achieve their part. Whether that be welfare, financial or technological, depends on each individual needs.     

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

Sea levels have risen about 8 inches since 1880. 3.5 inches of that was before CO2 levels started any significant rise in 1950. The world has handled it quite well. And sea levels have been much higher in the past, without human activity

If carbon emission reduction is not achieved to such a level that the consequences are not avoided then the world will have to re adjust to accommodate for the environmental changes. This is what life does and has done during its entire history on this planet. 

This however doesn't mean we should just sit back and see what happens. I feel the approach should be 2 fold. First off do all we can to reduce the impact and improve sustainability. Second prepare the those environments for which will be most effected. Both are going to be difficult to accomplish and very expensive. Neither I feel are going to be 100% successful, but mitigation so to lower the risk is a goal which is realistic, and should be at the very least aimed for.   

Edited March 28, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

Ok fair enough, I'll concede 

I cannot speak for all nations and all companies. But in the sector I work the government are putting pressure on the companies to be net zero by 2050 and now with the announcement of the UN by 2040. The initial expectation was 2030, but the government realised that this was totally unrealistic so backed off somewhat. 

The reality is that most are not going to achieve the 2040 mark so what does this mean? No one really has any answer.

So this is what is sort of eating at me on this subject. The climate change experts and scientific community on this subject are saying that the world will suffer devastating consequences if carbon reduction is not achieved. So if this is the case (which I have conceded to accept) then if  it's is not achieved soon governments will surely have no other choice but to enforce action. So rather than being an initiative it will become a mandate.

Fine, if this needs to be done then we will have to accept it. However, with out support there will be economic consequences, which without support people will not achieve the deadline.

So in my humble opinion to achieve the deadline there requires significant investment in aiding people to achieve their part. Whether that be welfare, financial or technological, depends on each individual needs.     

If carbon emission reduction is not achieved to such a level that the consequences are not avoided then the world will have to re adjust to accommodate for the environmental changes. This is what life does and has done during its entire history on this planet. 

This however doesn't mean we should just sit back and see what happens. I feel the approach should be 2 fold. First off do all we can to reduce the impact and improve sustainability. Second prepare the those environments for which will be most effected. Both are going to be difficult to accomplish and very expensive. Neither I feel are going to be 100% successful, but mitigation so to lower the risk is a goal which is realistic, and should be at the very least aimed for.   

What industry or sector, in what country, are you talking about? 

[Intoscience]

Ceramic manufacturing, but the whole sector includes many other manufacturing companies that use gas & electric fired kiln furnaces.  

Edited March 28, 2023 by Intoscience

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

The reality is that most are not going to achieve the 2040 mark so what does this mean? No one really has any answer.

Yes we do, it's a can kicking exercise; it gives them time to think of a new way to kick the can further down the road; all the while sporting a fixed grin, that be lies their hope that it will become someone else's problem before we reach the cliff... 

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

Ceramic manufacturing, but the whole sector includes many other manufacturing companies that use gas & electric fired kiln furnaces.  

Off the top of my head, site the factory next to a big arsed shit farm and use the waste material; making both the shit farm and your company profitable (without taxing the people), worthy of a sizeable investment, no?

7 hours ago, mistermack said:

Sea levels have risen about 8 inches since 1880. 3.5 inches of that was before CO2 levels started any significant rise in 1950. The world has handled it quite well. And sea levels have been much higher in the past, without human activity.

As for deserts, yes, some are growing. Why? Because of over-grazing on the margins because of the high birth rate in those areas. In areas where grazing is managed, the desertification can be reversed.

There are other factors than CO2 at work.

OK that's fine, we can't predict the future, you might be right, however long the odds are.

That's like a poor man spending every penny he will ever earn, on one national lottery ticket to solve his problem's; some people might say that's a really childish way to solve a problem.

[mistermack]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's like a poor man spending every penny he will ever earn, on one national lottery ticket to solve his problem's; some people might say that's a really childish way to solve a problem.

At the moment, the world is buying billions of lottery tickets, without even knowing if there is a prize. It's ludicrous the way people have taken to an unproven hypothesis, just following some very well meaning but biased climate models, produced by people who are so dedicated to a cause that no dissent or contrary evidence is allowed. 

But it's not all bad news. Renewable energy tech can't be a bad thing, if it keeps the price of gas and oil down, and reduces the reliance on a few energy-rich exporters. And fossil fuels will of course get scarcer in the future, so it's not a bad thing to be ready for when that happens. 

My problem with it all is the notion the world seems to have, that if CO2 is reduced, all will be well. Ignoring the real problem of overpopulation of the planet, which IS real, and if people stopped ignoring it and did something, they could make a REAL difference for far less money than is being spent on CO2 mitigation. 

[TheVat]

3 minutes ago, mistermack said:

At the moment, the world is buying billions of lottery tickets, without even knowing if there is a prize. It's ludicrous the way people have taken to an unproven hypothesis, just following some very well meaning but biased climate models, produced by people who are so dedicated to a cause that no dissent or contrary evidence is allowed. 

The climate models have been biased towards a more conservative extrapolation, you're quite right.  Changes in surface and sea ice and permafrost have actually been happening faster than many of the mainstream models predicted.   Feedback mechanisms (like exposed Arctic bog particulate release, Arctic methane and carbon releases, decreased albedo from ice loss, wildfire soot on snowfields, scrublands or grassland replacing forests, etc) keep emerging as accelerants.  Thanks for noticing GW is happening more quickly than originally predicted due to feedback loops!  Thank goodness alert people like you are really paying attention to the massive current data on these dangerous tipping points!

[mistermack]

1 minute ago, TheVat said:

The climate models have been biased towards a more conservative extrapolation, you're quite right.  Changes in surface and sea ice and permafrost have actually been happening faster than many of the mainstream models predicted.

I've been seeing dire predictions about sea ice for the last forty years. The Arctic should be ice free by now. In reality, here's the current extent : 

[CharonY]

Can you show us the studies predicting complete loss of sea ice by 2023?

Meanwhile long-term studies show reduction in extent and thickness, especially in recent years.

DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/aae3ec

 

[John Cuthber]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

. It's ludicrous the way people have taken to an unproven hypothesis, just following some very well meaning but biased climate models, produced by people who are so dedicated to a cause that no dissent or contrary evidence is allowed. 

OK, but we have to ask what do the "other side's" models say?

The big energy companies have plenty of money to spend on looking at this, and they have an obvious interest in doing so.
What do their predictions look like?
Well...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research

[Endy0816]

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

I've been seeing dire predictions about sea ice for the last forty years. The Arctic should be ice free by now. In reality, here's the current extent : 

We're noticeably losing land where I'm at...

Main issue is all of our infrastructure. While sea levels have been different historically, we didn't have largely immobile constructions to contend with.

Lot areas are specialized too in terms of being adapted to their existing environment. It's going to be a mess dealing with multiple impacts simultaneously (crops, pests, weather patterns).

[mistermack]

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

What do their predictions look like?

Individual predictions have become meaningless in the climate dance. There have been so many of them, so varied, that you can look back and take your pick to find the one that best bolsters your own point of view. 

And the IPCC predictions are pretty meaningless, because they hedge their bets with generous error bars. Their salaries can be accurately predicted. Everything else is fifty years in the future, with a big margin for error. 

But like I wrote earlier, in the present climate, I'm all for making the most of the more practical renewables, but not for throwing money around like confetti. 

Here in England, I have a friend who wanted a new boiler. He was on oil-fired central heating in an old cottage. He applied for grants, and a project has just been completed on his house. They put insulation on all of the outside walls. Put solar panels on his roof. Fitted new bigger ratiators right through the house. Installed an air-source heat pump, with all wiring etc as part of the system. Nearly all of the workers were Egyptian or Romanian etc. The total cost my friend has no idea about because he's not paying a penny towards it. He did ask, saying 'I'll bet it's about £20,000' and the boss shook his head and said it was loads more than that. 

And the amazing thing is that they are struggling to get people to take up the offer. 

How this is a good use of taxpayers money, or helping the country or the climate I can only wonder. The system works fine on warm sunny days. But struggles in the cold cloudy days. Brilliant stuff. 

He will be coining it in the summer, putting power back into the grid, but at a time when there is a surplus anyway. I can think of better ways of spending the country's money, especially when times are supposed to be hard. 

[MigL]

Just to be clear ...

Sea ice, or floating ice, that melts, does not raise sea levels.
Does your drink overflow when the ice cubes in it melt ?
It is ice ove land, such as glaciers or Antartica, that will raise sea levels upon melting.

Keep in mind this is a science site.

[CharonY]

55 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Individual predictions have become meaningless in the climate dance. There have been so many of them, so varied, that you can look back and take your pick to find the one that best bolsters your own point of view. 

And the IPCC predictions are pretty meaningless, because they hedge their bets with generous error bars. Their salaries can be accurately predicted. Everything else is fifty years in the future, with a big margin for error. 

So the answer is no, I take it?

[mistermack]

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

Keep in mind this is a science site.

In that case, you should quote what you are referring to. Because nobody said that sea ice raised sea levels. Maybe throwing your straw men in the ocean might raise it a bit. 

[John Cuthber]

8 hours ago, mistermack said:

I've been seeing dire predictions about sea ice for the last forty years.

 

7 hours ago, CharonY said:

Can you show us the studies predicting complete loss of sea ice by 2023?

 

 

 

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

In that case, you should quote what you are referring to.

 

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

Individual predictions have become meaningless in the climate dance.

Just as well I asked about a whole class of predictions, isn't it?

[Ken Fabian]

@mistermack I am not impressed by your arguments. I think the modeling on top of the fundamental understandings of how the climate system works is telling us more than enough to know that failure to treat it as real and serious will make it a lot worse - and that the consequences will almost certainly be very damaging. Warming was predicted, warming has been occurring. Between Greenland and Antarctica the world is losing 430 billion tons of ice mass per year and rising, ie 53 tons per person per year - how much change to the world is enough to be taken seriously? Someone said Arctic Ice could be gone in Summer by now - but that was never what the IPCC advice said; that made that person wrong, not the IPCC advice.

The range of estimates for how much warming and how serious the impacts are more directly tied to how strong and successful our emissions reductions efforts are than to the uncertainties of estimates of the strength of enhanced greenhouse. The low range projections are all predicated on strong and successful emissions reductions and shouldn't be used as "see, the IPCC range is so wide anything could happen". The rate of emissions has never been higher, a decade of them now equivalent to many decades last century. The problem is cumulative and the impacts will become stronger. And continuing with high emissions - which is what your arguments support - makes the higher end projections more likely.

The IPCC reports are the expert advice governments called for in order to make informed decisions. The urging to dismiss and ignore that advice isn't about legitimate doubts about the quality of that advice.

[iNow]

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

So the answer is no, I take it?

Obviously since he ignored you several times about it 

[MigL]

7 hours ago, mistermack said:

In that case, you should quote what you are referring to. Because nobody said that sea ice raised sea levels. Maybe throwing your straw men in the ocean might raise it a bit. 

I do believe it was you, Misterstraw, who referenced the ( non ? ) retreating Arctic ( mostly ) floating ice, in an on-going discussion about rising sea levels.

If it was not your intent to link the two effects, you should clearly state so.

 

[mistermack]

4 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

The IPCC reports are the expert advice governments called for in order to make informed decisions. The urging to dismiss and ignore that advice isn't about legitimate doubts about the quality of that advice.

This is not true. Climate science is not like physics or biology or maths. It's not hundreds of years old. It's a brand new science and has a track record of nil in the forecasting of climate. You can always find an accurate prediction for this or that, when there are thousands and thousands to choose from. Someone will get it right, just like the national lottery. It doesn't mean that the lottery winner had prior knowledge. 

A while back, there was a hiatus of about ten years, when global temperatures hardly moved. What did the IPCC say? They pointed out that their predictions were more confident for 100 years from now, and that the immediate future was less certain, and they had said that there could be 'ups and downs' in the short term. So you simply can't win against that. Whatever the climate does, the IPCC will be able to say "we forecast that". And everyone alive now will be dead long before they can be proved wrong.

I see climate science at the moment as a bit like the study of vulcanism. But at least the vulcanologists are honest enough to say that they can't as yet make accurate predictions. That doesn't invalidate the effort to study the subject, and one day, they might be able to make confident predictions that turn out right.

So my message to the IPCC is, keep at it, you might be useful one day. Weather predictions are certainly better now than fifty years ago. They've gone from one day confidence to about three or four days. But good luck with the 100 year predictions. Still some work to do there.  

 

[Peterkin]

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

But good luck with the 100 year predictions.

Especially if it takes that long for some people to pay attention!